David Wells

You love to see it avclub.com/ai-thomson-reuter…

Detecting cancer earlier is a sensible thing for the UK government to use AI for. And it doesn’t involve stealing the work of the country’s creators to build it. The problem we face is that AI companies intentionally muddy the waters, and try to convince govt that upending copyright law is necessary if you want this kind of AI model. It isn’t.

One of the most infuriating things about governments changing copyright law to appease AI companies is that everyone is citing other countries' laws as a reason to change their own. The UK government wants to let AI companies train on ©️ work to compete primarily with the US, which it perceives as more friendly to AI companies. But OpenAI, a US company, is *also* lobbying the US government for the right to train on ©️ work. If both these countries would just stand up for creators, the global conversation would be set, and AI + creativity would evolve into a symbiotic relationship. Instead, there is a race to upend copyright, citing fear that other countries will do so. All of this is avoidable if any government would just stand up and defend creators. techcrunch.com/2025/01/13/op…

I encourage everyone to watch the inimitable @richardosman speaking this week about generative AI's theft of copyrighted works, and what the UK government should do about it: "Things are being stolen." "In a very basic way, these people are not disruptors, they're thieves." "People push things as far as they possibly can until someone tells them to stop." Requiring creators to opt out of generative AI training "is like asking a newsagent to sign a thing that says, 'Oh by the way, I do need you to pay for those Mars Bars'." "It feels insanely simple. We have copyright in this country, and it is respected by people, and we now have a new industry which is not respecting it and which is stealing people's work." youtu.be/mHGFmj3BlN0?t=62&si…

Today, the UK government announced a proposal to change copyright law - for the benefit of AI companies - that would cause huge, irreversible harm to creators. More info below, but most importantly here's what you can do (wherever you live): 1. Email your MP. If you're in the UK, here's a template letter you can copy - docs.google.com/document/d/1… - and you can find your local MP's details here - members.parliament.uk/member…. 2. If you're a creator, email your representatives. Your publisher, record label, union - whoever represents you. Here's a second template letter you can copy - docs.google.com/document/d/1…. You need to know your representatives are representing your views. 3. Respond to the consultation. You can do so by emailing [email protected]. If possible, write your own response, and go into all the detail you can. Feel free to use info / data I've prepared here - docs.google.com/document/d/1…. 4. Share these template letters with anyone you know. The more people get involved, the more the government will get the message that a broad copyright exception is the wrong path to be pursuing. -- And here's a summary of the government's proposal, and why I think it's so problematic: - Broad new copyright exception for commercial generative AI training. AI companies will be able to train on British copyrighted work without a licence, even if the AI model is designed to compete with the creators whose work is trained on. This would make the UK one of the most punitive jurisdictions for creators in the world. - Rights holders can 'reserve their rights', i.e. opt out. But opt-outs don't work (you can't successfully opt out downstream copies of your work), most creators miss the chance to opt-out, doing so is a huge admin burden, etc. AI companies should be getting opt-in consent - it's unfair to shift the burden to creators. - AI companies must offer some level of transparency over their training data. This would be good if presented on its own, but it's much less helpful if you're packaging it up with a broad copyright exception that lets AI companies train on most of the UK's creative output with impunity. The consultation on these proposals lasts for 10 weeks. Anyone who cares about this issue should do whatever they can to make their views known to government now - there will only be one chance.